Frias v Tejeda

[*1] Frias v Tejeda 2015 NY Slip Op 50913(U) Decided on June 16, 2015 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on June 16, 2015
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : TOLBERT, J.P., GARGUILO and CONNOLLY, JJ.
2013-2215 W C

Edward Frias, Respondent,

against

Jeanette Tejeda, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of White Plains, Westchester County (Barbara A. Leak, J.), entered April 15, 2013. The judgment, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,239.83.ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.

Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, plaintiff seeks in this small claims action to recover monies allegedly owed to him for defendant's one-half share of purchased items. After a nonjury trial, the City Court awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $1,239.83, representing 50 percent of the cost of the items which plaintiff and defendant had jointly purchased, and which defendant had kept.

In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UCCA 1807; see UCCA 1804; Ross v Friedman, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). Furthermore, the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (see Vizzari v State of New York, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; Kincade v Kincade, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (see Williams v Roper, 269 AD2d at 126).

Upon a review of the record, we find that the court's determination provided the parties with substantial justice (see UCCA 1804, 1807). Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.

Tolbert, J.P., Garguilo and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Decision Date: June 16, 2015